Christ's Commandments

[phil112]

They are a summary of the Ten Commandments...

Stop adding words to the bible. It says no such thing. Stop making your doctrine out to be the word of God. You'll pay dearly for such foolishness. They don't "summarize" the ten, the ten are fulfilled by them.

The law is weak. It condemned men. Love is the fulfillment of law, the apex of something the law cannot reach, only point towards. You need to read Romans chapter 8 and have someone explain it to you since you clearly have no understanding of plain scripture. And that someone should be someone you aren't presently listening to, because you are hanging with like minded people.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

You are clinging to the law of sin and death, and that will be your reward.

You, by obeying the law, are walking after the flesh. Time and again we are exhorted to be spiritually minded, to mortify the flesh. Your carnal doctrines will lead you to hell.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[john832]

Stop adding words to the bible. It says no such thing. Stop making your doctrine out to be the word of God. You'll pay dearly for such foolishness. They don't "summarize" the ten, the ten are fulfilled by them.

OK, let's see who is changing scripture...

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

G346

ἀνακεφαλαίομαι
anakephalaiomai
an-ak-ef-al-ah'ee-om-ahee
From G303 and G2775 (in its original sense); to sum up: - briefly comprehend, gather together in one.Total KJV occurrences: 2

So, when Paul says that loving your neighbor sums up the Commandments or gathers them together in one, explain why that means the exact opposite of what it says.

 

[WebersHome]

-
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is widely thought to be one of
Christ's commandments; but it isn't. He got it from the covenant that Yhvh's
people agreed upon with God as per Lev 19:18 and Lev 19:34.

Christ's commandment goes beyond the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God. He says: "As I have loved you, so you must love one
another." (John 13:34 and John 15:12)

Bottom line is: the covenant demands humane love, while Christ demands
divine love; which is a much harder love to produce than humane love
because only people blessed with a divine's nature can produce divine love.
Good luck with that.

=======================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #60

-
CC: 55-58

55) Rom 15:7 . . Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in
order to bring praise to God.

That's a bit tricky but I think it just means believers should acknowledge one
another as Christians, and treat one another as Christians, though they may
differ in opinion about what constitutes a true Christian.

For example: it's not unusual to hear a Christian pontificate that real
Christians would never watch R-rated movies, gamble, wear a speedo or a
string bikini on the beach, use cosmetics, smoke marijuana, expose cleavage
or wear tight fitting yoga pants in public, stop for a beer on the way home
from work, have a glass of wine before bedtime, listen to RAP music, ditch
church and Sunday school for years at a time, or go in a bar or a nightclub
where there's topless female dancers up on a stage twining themselves
around a pole while leering men stuff money in the hems of their skimpy
little costumes.

Too many Christians have the opinion that unless others believe and behave
the very same way they believe and behave, then those others are not
Christians. Well; the easiest way to settle this is to follow Webster's
definition that a Christian is simply someone who professes a belief in the
teachings of Jesus Christ. That's it: no more, no less, and no qualifiers. They
don't even have to practice the Lord's teachings; they only have to profess
to believe in them.

An internet forum I was on in the past made it even easier. In order to
qualify as a Christian on that forum; one only had to believe they were a
Christian; viz: they didn't have to prove they were a Christian; no, they only
had to be convinced in their own minds that they were a Christian. If we all
followed that rule it would put a stop to a lot of unnecessary quarreling and
bad feelings.

56) Rom 15:27 . . For if the Gentiles have shared in the Israelite's spiritual
blessings, they owe it to the Israelites to share with them their material
blessings.

Within the context of Rom 15:25-27, the Israelites to whom Paul refers are
not those who believe and practice Judaism; but those who believe and
practice Christianity. It is unbecoming for Christians to support religions that
undermine their Master.

57) Rom 16:17-18 . . I urge you, brothers, beware of those who cause
divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you
have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our
Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they
deceive the minds of naïve people.

One of the Lord's very effective opponents isn't a person; but rather, it's a
persuasive teaching method called sophistry; which Webster's defines as a
reason or an argument that sounds correct but is actually false; viz: subtly
deceptive reasoning or argumentation. Sophistry is so subtle, so appealing,
so deceptive, makes such good sense, and is so convincing that even its
users are easily fooled by it.

Sophistry in religion is found in true-sounding beliefs based upon false
premises. According to Eph 4:11-14 the very reason that Christ hand-picks
some of his followers to speak for him is so that the rest of his followers may
have access to true premises upon which to base their beliefs. Some
Christians are of the opinion that they can get by without the assistance of
Christ's hand-picked teachers just by reading the Bible on their own; but it is
not the Lord's wishes that they go that route.

58) 1Cor 1:10 . . I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no
divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and
thought.

I think it would be interesting to analyze the incident that prompted Paul to
issue that order.

†. 1Cor 1:11-12 . . My brothers, some from Chloe's household have
informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this; one of
you says "I follow Paul" and another says "I follow Apollos" and another says
"I follow Cephas" and still another says "I follow Christ".

The "divisions" that Paul addressed were apparently related to the sins of
rivalry and elitism-- some even going so far as to allege that their baptism
was superior to the "second-rate" baptisms experienced by others.

A modern example of that kind of elitism today might go like this: one might
brag "I was saved at a Louis Palau crusade" while, not to be outdone,
another might retort "That's nothing; I was saved at a Billy Graham crusade"
or "My pastor got his degree at Dallas Theological Seminary" while another
may counter by saying "So? My pastor got his doctorate at Yale Divinity
School" or "I listen to Thru The Bible with J.Vernon McGee every day on the
radio" while another may retort by saying "He's okay for some people; but
Back To The Bible with Woodrow Kroll is where it's really at." or "I use
nothing but the King James version of the Bible" while another may scoff
with "People serious about Bible study use a Scofield Reference Bible in the
NIV." or "I can read and write Greek" while another might retort: "You
should try learning Hebrew sometime. Now there's a challenge."

Those kinds of petty rivalries generate unnecessary bad feelings amongst
Christians, and should be avoided.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #64

-
CC: 59

59) 1Cor 1:26-31 . . For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many
wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but
God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and
God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which
are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised,
hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things
that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

When people aren't boasting about themselves; they're often boasting about
the accomplishments of their heroes; e.g. athletes, movie stars, celebrities,
scientists, financial moguls, politicians, news anchors, military personnel,
journalists, authors, and others like that. Well; though those people's
accomplishments are certainly admirable and fully deserve recognition;
bottom line is: they don't impress God one whit because their
accomplishments, and yours too, are nothing in comparison to His. In point
of fact, their accomplishments, and yours too, are less than nothing in
comparison to God's.

One of God's accomplishments that causes me to greatly admire Him is the
scheme He came up with to clear the books of my sins in a way that satisfies
justice without causing me harm and/or compromising His integrity.

God's intuitive sense of justice imposes some serious limitations upon both
me and Him; and one of those limitations is that His intuitive sense of justice
does not permit sweeping sins under the rug. No; God's intuitive sense of
justice demands that sins be brought to justice. Ergo: were God to sweep
sins under the rug, He would violate the dictates of His own conscience;
which, according to the principles we only just recently looked at in the 14th
of Romans, is a pretty bad sin itself.

Another of God's many accomplishments that causes me to greatly admire
Him is the scheme He came up with to knock down a wall separating He and
I that is far more impenetrable than that of either Berlin's or China's; which
reads like this:

†. Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change [the color of] his skin; or the
leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing
evil.

In other words: it is impossible for a man to break human nature's tendency
to do evil. Just as people born with black skin are stuck with black skin, and
just as leopards born with spotted fur are stuck with spotted fur; so a man
accustomed to doing evil is stuck with continuing to do evil.

God solved that problem by somehow transferring me from the human race
patterned after Adam the sinful man, to a human race patterned after Christ
the sinless man. In other words: though I cannot see the results now, there
is a day coming when I will never, ever again commit a sin of any kind in
either thought, word, or deed because in him, there is no sin (1John 3:5).
You gotta admit; that's quite an accomplishment. Nobody can top that one.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #65

-
CC: 60

The next commandment I wish to discuss is embedded in the following
scripture. It's pointed out by underlined text.

60) 1Cor 3:5-15 . .What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only
servants, through whom you came to believe. As the Lord has assigned to
each his task: I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who
makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one
purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are
God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the
grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a
foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how
he builds upon it.

. . . For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which
is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver,
precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for
the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself
will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has
built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work is burned
up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be spared, yet so as through
fire.

Sorry for that big gob of scripture, but in order to explain what is meant by
the underlined text it's essential that I retain it's context.

The works in question are those performed by Christians involved in
Christian service capacities e.g. apostles, missionaries, evangelists, pastors,
deacons, Sunday school teachers, church administrators, et al. Though the
average rank and file pew warmer's works will some day be evaluated too;
they are not the ones whose works will be evaluated as per 1Cor 3:5-15
because rank and file pew warmers are depicted as: (1) God's field, and (2)
His building.

It's extremely important to note that only the Christian worker's works are
tested with fire; not the worker himself. Compare this to the Great White
Throne of Rev 20:11-15 where the dead's works are not tested; but rather,
their works are introduced as evidence in the prosecution's case against
them. The Christian worker's works aren't evaluated as evidence against
them, but as potential credit to justify giving them a performance award.

Another extremely important thing to note is that the Christian worker's
substandard works are burned up rather than burned off; as if the worker
has to spend some time in a purgatory or something like that.

The phrase "he himself will be spared, but only as through fire" is rendered
by some translators as "like someone escaping through a wall of flames"
and/or "as one escaping through the flames". It's a depiction of people who
waken inside a burning home with barely enough time to get out; taking
nothing with them but whatever they wore to bed. Their home is destroyed,
and all their belongings and all their mementoes; but at least the occupants
themselves are safe, and suffer no harm from the fire.

"each man should be careful how he builds" indicates that Christian workers
need to keep in mind that what they produce will be thoroughly scrutinized;
and projects that don't measure up will be summarily culled; resulting of
course in reduced compensation for their service. How sad it would be to see
workers like Mother Teresa who, after devoting decades of their lives to a
Christian service capacity, only to be stripped of everything and come away
with nothing to show for it; not even so much as a Boy Scout merit badge.

BTW: according to 1Cor 4:5 the motives of Christian workers will be
evaluated too in order to determine whether they were in it for the Lord, or
just in it for themselves.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #66

-
CC: 61-64

61) 1Cor 3:18 . . If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this
age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise.

How do you go about convincing somebody with an IQ of 110 that they're
stupid? Well; of course they're not really stupid; just smart in things that
have no value to God.

Take for example people like Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, Barbara Walters,
Oprah Winfrey, Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Jimmy
Fallon, Paul McCartney, et al. Those people are geniuses at what they're
good at; but when it comes to things that mean something to God: they're
dunces because they have focused all their intellectual energy upon things
that have value to them; and zero intellectual energy contemplating things
that mean something to God. When was the last time you heard any of
those people make a meaningful comment about God, or about His son
Jesus? No, their comments-- if they make any --are on a childish level and
rife with tiresome clichés and platitudes.

†. 1Cor 3:20 . .The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise; that they are
worthless.

Maybe the thoughts of the wise are worth something to the world; but not to
God. They bore Him to tears.

62) 1 Cor 3:21-23 . . So don't take pride in following a particular leader.
Everything belongs to you-- Paul and Apollos and Peter --the whole world
and life and death; the present and the future. Everything belongs to you,
and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.

I've noticed that avid sports fans are afflicted with chronic identity
syndromes. When their favorite team wins; they say "we" won; as if they
were on the team playing the game instead of up in the bleachers or on the
couch at home watching the action on TV. Christians who worship the
ground that their favorite pastors and/or Sunday school teachers walk on
are just as avid. They want to be identified with those kinds of church
luminaries because it makes them look really smart and elite; when in
reality it just makes them look like star-crossed morons.

63) 1Cor 4:1 . . So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ, and
as those entrusted with the mysteries of God.

Christians are so prone to hero worship. They idolize the pastors of their
churches; and celebrities of the Christian world like Mother Teresa and Billy
Graham are practically sacred cows-- when they should recognize that those
celebrities are mere servants rather than gods. And in light of passages like
1Cor 3:5-15; it's makes more sense to fear for those servants than to
admire them.

64) 1Cor 4:5 . . Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till The Lord
comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and expose the
motives of men's hearts.

The "judging" with respect to 1Cor 4:5 regards human nature's propensity to
idolize religious celebrities without having all the facts. For example; we now
know from Mother Teresa's private letters-- made public by Father Brian
Kolodiejchuk's book "Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light" --that Ms. Agnes
Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a nun with so little personal belief in God as to be an
agnostic; and yet for decades everyone the world over thought she was the
cat's meow and the bee's knees: a veritable poster child of piety in thought,
word, and deed.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #67

-
CC: 65

Q: Does Mtt 7:1-5 condemn all judging?

A: No, that passage only condemns judging with a double standard.

"Judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)

Righteous judgment can be defined as the enforcement and/or application of
law without passion or prejudice; viz: across the board and by the book
without bias, hypocrisy, partiality, disparity, or favoritism. Christians are not
only encouraged to judge, but Christ orders them to judge; for example:

65) 1Cor 5:1-7 . . I can hardly believe the report about the sexual
immorality going on among you, something so evil that even the pagans
don't do it. I am told that you have a man in your church who is living in sin
with his father's wife. And you are so proud of yourselves! Why aren't you
mourning in sorrow and shame? And why haven't you removed this man
from your fellowship?

. . . Even though I am not there with you in person, I am with you in The
Spirit. Concerning the one who has done this, I have already passed
judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus. You are to call a meeting of the
church, and I will be there in spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus will be
with you as you meet. Then you must cast this man out of the church and
into Satan's hands, so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself
will be spared when The Lord returns.

. . . How terrible that you should boast about your spirituality, and yet you
let this sort of thing go on. Don't you realize that if even one person is
allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected? Remove this wicked
person from among you so that you can stay pure.

The deed Paul condemned in that passage is the kind of incest where a man
is sleeping with his step-mother. That sometimes happens when a son is
about the right age for his father's youngish wife. My own dad's third wife
was around 20 when I was but 24. No, nothing happened because the very
thought was repulsive and disgusting.

"Remove this wicked person from among you so that you can stay pure"
indicates that the shameful conduct of just one member of the congregation
is the whole congregation's shame. This isn't a proprietary Christian
principle. It first shows up in the 7th chapter of Joshua. The insubordination
of one insignificant Jewish man— just one —caused God to stop assisting
Joshua's army in battle. As a result, 36 men were needlessly killed in action;
and ultimately capital punishment was inflicted upon not only the
insubordinate man himself, but also his sons and his daughters. What did
God say? Achan has sinned? No: Israel has sinned. (Josh 7:11)

This is one of the best arguments against church expansion; viz: the bigger
a congregation gets, the more difficult it is to keep an eye on everyone's
conduct.

FYI: One of the requirements for righteous judgment is the absence of
hypocrisy; viz: it's best to recuse yourself from taking part in judging a
fellow Christian if the very same sin for which he's about to be hammered
has been going on in your own life.

==================================

 

[jeff_peacemkr]

just in agreement with Scripture and with the point of this post, without seeing the others yet,

the wolves after paul departed, tore the flock apart like he said they would,
and changed or tried to change the law(s) and the days.... (and for the world, did).

OK, let's see who is changing scripture...

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

G346

ἀνακεφαλαίομαι
anakephalaiomai
an-ak-ef-al-ah'ee-om-ahee
From G303 and G2775 (in its original sense); to sum up: - briefly comprehend, gather together in one.Total KJV occurrences: 2

So, when Paul says that loving your neighbor sums up the Commandments or gathers them together in one, explain why that means the exact opposite of what it says.

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #68

-
CC: 66-67

66) 1Cor 5:6-8 . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole
lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump,
since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was
sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor
with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth.

Before we can begin to make any sense out of the Lord's instructions, it's
first necessary to define what the Bible means by leavened bread.

People learned long ago that bread made from spoiled dough is tastier and
fluffier than bread made from fresh dough. But it takes time for fresh dough
to spoil on its own, so to speed up the process they began mixing a
percentage of fermented dough with their fresh dough. Nowadays people
add yeast to their dough to make it tastier and fluffier; but that is not really
Bible leavened bread. The Bible's leavened bread is, in principle, a blend of
old and new, fresh and spoiled, corruption and incorruption.

Were the presence of yeast in one's bread the definition of leavened bread
then all dough, even the very freshest batch of dough, would be leavened
dough because it is nigh unto impossible to keep naturally occurring yeast
out of even the most pristine wheat flour no matter much care is taken in
milling it. But yeast by itself isn't leaven. True leaven is an older dough
that's gone bad on its own by letting nature take its course rather than by
the addition of yeast in new dough.

When somebody's personal conduct is a blend of malice and wickedness
instead of sincerity and truth, then their conduct is the very kind of bread
that Christ wants his followers to shun because that kind of conduct amounts
to putrefaction; viz; it's bad and it's unacceptable.

67) 1Cor 5:9-13 . . When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate
with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn't talking about unbelievers
who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol
worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that.

. . .What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims
to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols,
or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people.
It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to
judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. God will judge
those on the outside; but you must remove the evil person from among you.

Good luck getting modern Christians to comply with those instructions;
instead they'll piously protest: "It's not for us to judge." Well; contrary to
those pious protests; judging and ostracizing aren't negotiable; they're
mandatory.

My son and I are both Christians. Well; long story short, he became an
alcoholic; and due to the way drinking was messing with his brain cells, he
became insolent, and treated me and his mother with terrible contempt;
even to the point of making up slanderous stories about us. Finally one day;
I told him: "You're not a man; you're a drunk. I don't want to know you
anymore."

His mother was crushed that I would disown our son like that but I reminded
her of 1Cor 5:9-13 that it was our sacred duty to ostracize drunken
Christians. And I knew in my own heart that if I didn't take drastic steps my
son would never get off the bottle, nor would he ever start treating us the3
respect due us as his parents.

Well; my action shook him up. He finally came to his senses and realized his
drinking and his insolence were destroying him. He immediately stopped
drinking and joined AA and hasn't touched a drop since. That was June
2012.

Q: What about saved and born-again gays and lesbians? Do they have to be
judged and ostracized too?

A: There was a time in the not-so-distant past when there would have been
no need to ask that question. But the question is very pertinent nowadays
what with so many State, local, and Federal laws practically giving gays and
lesbians the status of protected species. It's got to the point when accusing
gays and lesbians of sexual sin is considered hate speech.

The key to correctly applying 1Cor 5:9-13 to Christian gays and lesbians is
the word "indulges" which Webster's defines as: excessive compliance and
weakness in gratifying another's or one's own desires. In other words:
before judging and ostracizing gays and lesbians they have to be sexually
active.

And please; let's not level all the heavy guns at gays and lesbians because
the list includes swindling and greed too; which were responsible for the Wall
Street crash back in 2008 that led to thousands of people everywhere losing
their jobs, their retirements, and their homes. Gays and lesbians are of no
consequence at all in comparison to the power of greed and swindling to ruin
people's lives, collapse entire economies, and create fear, panic, and havoc
on a titanic scale.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #70

-
CC: 68

68) 1Cor 6:1-6 . . If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it
before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not
know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world,
are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will
judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have
disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in
the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody
among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead,
one brother goes to law against another-and this in front of unbelievers!

Apparently some of the Christians in the church at Corinth let the Sermon
On The Mount go in one ear and out the other.

†. Matt 5:39-40 . . But I say unto you: That ye resist not evil; but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloak also.

†. Luke 12:57-59 . .Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? As
you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be
reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the
judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell
you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

The Lord began his teaching in Luke with the words "Why don't you judge
for yourselves what is right?" In other words; if someone threatens to take
you to court over a tort matter, and you know darn good and well he's in the
right; don't force him to go to law. Instead, admit to your wrong and settle
out of court. According to the Lord, it’s unrighteous to tie up the courts when
you know your own self that you are the one who's in the wrong. There's
just simply no righteous reason why Christian defendants and plaintiffs can't
be their own judge and jury in tort matters.

†. 1Cor 6:7-8 . . Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because
ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye
not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and
defraud, and that your brethren.

The koiné Greek word for "defraud" is apostereo (ap-os-ter-eh'-o) which is
an ambiguous word with more than one meaning, and more than one
application. The meaning that seems appropriate in this instance is
"deprive".

It works like this: Were I to trip and fall because of a crack in the walk
leading up to the front door of the home of one of my kin; I wouldn't haul
them into court over it because we're related; viz: any injury I might incur
by tripping and falling because of a crack in their walk would be a family
matter rather than a legal matter; and they have a right to be treated by me
as family rather than as enemies in a lawsuit because we're related. Were I
to sue them for tripping and falling because of a crack in their walk; I would
be depriving them of the love that kin have a right to expect from one
another.

Well; Christians are supposed to be brethren; in the highest possible sense
of the word.

†. 1John 3:14-16 . .We know that we have passed out of death into life,
because we love the brethren. . . We know love by this, that He laid down
His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

I think it's safe to say that if somebody is comfortable taking a fellow
Christian to court; then they certainly are not prepared to lay down their life
for the brethren.

It's really sad to see relatives suing each other in court; but it happens all
the time. When the world does it; well, that's to be expected; but when
Christians sue each other; that's dysfunctional.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #71

-
CC: 69

69) 1Cor 6:18 . . Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the
body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body.

The koiné Greek word for "fornication" is porneia (por-ni'-ah) which doesn't
mean pornography; it means harlotry; a term that Webster's defines as
sexual profligacy. Porneia would include things like prostitution, adultery,
promiscuity, date sex, free love, shacking up, one-night stands, swingers,
wife swapping, and that sort of thing.

The command is not to walk away from fornication; but to run away from it
as if your very life depends upon putting distance between you and it. The
same Greek word is used at Matt 2:13 where an angel instructed Joseph to
flee into Egypt in order to save his little boy's life.

Fleeing is different than shunning. I think what we're talking about here are
the times when a golden opportunity comes along to mess around with
somebody who is absolutely irresistible. Some people would call that getting
lucky; but in God's estimation, it's getting stupid if you play along and see
what happens.

Young Christian couples often want to know how far they can go with their
dates before they're into forbidden territory. Well, we all instinctively know
the upper limits, but since the lower limits aren't chipped in stone then I
would have to say let your own conscience be your guide in accordance with
the Lord's principles stipulated in the 14th chapter of Romans regulating
gray areas. The key principles are:

"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom 14:5)

"Happy is he that feels no guilt in that thing which he allows." (Rom 14:22)

He that doubts is guilty if he eats, because he eats not of faith: for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Rom 14:23)

However, as an old senior guy of 70 who's been around the block a time or
two: I must forewarn youngsters that the human conscience is trainable.
What I mean is, if you manage to suppress your first-time pangs of guilt, the
second time will be easier; and each succeeding suppression of your
conscience gets easier and easier till the day comes when you feel no guilt at
all. In other words: you will eventually succeed in cauterizing your
conscience. (cf. 1Tim 4:1-2)

The phrase "sins against his own body" is sort of the same wording as at
1Cor 11:27 where it's said "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and
blood of the Lord."

Some Christians construe 1Cor 11:27 as murder. Well if so, then sinning
against one's own body would be suicide. But actually, what we're talking
about here is gross contempt and disrespect. In other words; Christian
fornicators are treating their body like a chamber pot instead of a holy
vessel; and all the while they're dong that; they're dragging God's Spirit into
situations that He finds extremely unbecoming.

†. 1Cor 6:19 . . Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

They're also dragging Christ into shame and disgrace too.

†. 1Cor 6:14-16 . . Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ
himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with an
harlot? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with an harlot is
one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

It's sad but true: a number of Christians have spent so little time in the book
of Genesis that they haven't a clue what 1Cor 6:14-16 is talking about.

†. 1Cor 15:34 . . Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not
have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #72

-
CC: 70-72

70) 1Cor 6:20 . . For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

This is talking about a different principle than the ransom principle typically
associated with the plan of salvation. Here the ransomed sinner is depicted
as a purchased slave who is expected to do his new master's bidding instead
of running around loose as a free agent. In the old days; that was a sure-fire
invite to get your foot broke if that's what it took to keep you on the
plantation; and that after they laid your back open with a bull whip first to
get your attention.

71) 1Cor 7:2 . . Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The above is especially pertinent in 2014 America-- fornication is
everywhere: on a pandemic scale. It's in our music, in our schools, in the
White House, in our offices, on our televisions, in our movies, in our novels,
and in our conversations. People are even sleeping together on their very
first dates. Even Congressmen, Senators, and US Presidents are indulging in
forbidden love. The current Governor of Oregon is openly shaking up with a
girlfriend. An item in the January 2011 issue of National Geographic reports
that 41% of America's births in 2008 were illegitimate: up 28% from 1990.

This country is in a state of moral decadence, and becoming more and more
like the ancient city of Pompeii just prior to its destruction by the volcanism
of Mt. Vesuvius.

It's important to note that 1Cor 7:2 makes it okay to marry for sex. My
childhood religion taught me that it's a sin to marry for any other reason
except procreation and that couples who decide to remain childless are living
in sin. They get that from Genesis 1:28 where it's says: "God blessed them;
and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply". But that is clearly a blessing
rather than a law. It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or
empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise.

Ironically the original purpose of marriage was neither sex nor procreation;
it was companionship. (Gen 2:18)

72) 1Cor 7:3-4 . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not authority of
her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not
authority of his own body, but the wife.

What we're talking about in that verse is the principle of private property. In
other words: spouses own each other in a community property arrangement
wherein the wife is "his woman" and the husband is "her man". So then; if
you're looking for a man, or for a women, then go out and find one of your
own instead of taking a married one who has no right to give themselves to
you without their spouse's consent.

It's not uncommon for wives to withhold sex from their husbands as a
strategy to manipulate them. God forbid that any woman believing herself to
be one of Christ's followers should ever pull a stunt like that! Same goes for
the husbands. There is just no excuse for that kind of behavior in marriage.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

Continued From Post #73

-
CC: 73-74

73) 1 Cor 7:5 . . Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for
a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The koiné word for "defraud" is apostereo (ap-os-ter-eh'-o) which means: to
despoil; which Webster's defines as: to strip of belongings, possessions, or
value; viz: pillage.

In other words, married people who withhold sex from their spouses without
their consent are nothing less than thieves, and in violation of the 8th
commandment.

†. Ex 20:15 . .Thou shalt not steal.

The temptation in question is of course adultery. In other words; if one
spouse denies the other spouse's conjugal rights for too long a time they run
the risk of pushing them into another's arms.

I heard a story recently about a rather conniving Christian woman who
wanted a divorce from her Christian husband; but seeing as how the Lord
only allows death or adultery to dissolve the marital bond; she deliberately
denied her husband his conjugal rights in order to force him to think about
taking a lover; and when he did; she proceeded to divorce him on the
grounds of unfaithfulness. That way, in her mind's eye, she was the innocent
victim and he the villain. (chuckle) What people won't do to circumvent the
laws of God.

The woman's first mistake was going for a divorce instead of a separation.
Her second mistake was denying her husband's conjugal rights without his
consent. Her third mistake was in putting a stumbling block in his path. Her
fourth mistake was in leading him to do something that made him feel
guilty. She no doubt made a number of other mistakes too but those four
suffice for starters.

74) 1Cor 7:8-9 . . Now to the unmarried and the widows I say : It is good
for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves,
they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.

The koiné Greek word for "burn" is puroo (poo-ro'-o) which means: to
kindle, to ignite, to glow, and/or to be inflamed. I seriously doubt Paul
meant to convey the thought that the believers who lacked self control at
Corinth were in grave danger of the flames of hell since he had already
assured them in 1Cor 6:9-11 that they were washed, sanctified, and justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul was one of those kinds of men with a very low-powered libido. But not
everyone is like him; nor is everyone cut out to live alone.

Webster's defines "celibacy" as (1) the state of not being married, (2)
abstention from sexual intercourse, and (3) abstention by vow from
marriage. Celibacy then, isn't limited to zero sex, but also includes zero
marriage; even platonic unions.

Not long ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon quit the priesthood after
serving more than 30 years in order to get married because he couldn't
stand being alone anymore. He wasn't especially looking to get laid, he just
wanted to be with somebody; which is exactly how normal guys are
designed.

†. Gen 2:18 . .Yhvh God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary

The problem with a vow of celibacy is that although it may hinder a priest
from getting married, it does nothing to prevent him from pining for a
female companion. 1Cor 7:9 should suffice to silence the mouths of ascetics
who preach it's holy to abstain from every form of earthly pleasure; and also
the mouths of those who preach it's a sin to marry solely for sex.

==================================

 

[john832]

Have you ever wondered why the King James says in Colossians 2:17 says "but the body is of Christ" ?

Colossians 2:17 KJV
"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Well, God's Word Translation helps to clarify this point as to why the holy days and sabbaths of the Old Testament are just shadows. For

Colossians 2:17 GWT says,
"These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body [that casts the shadow] belongs to Christ."

Meaning the Old Testament Laws and rituals were all just a shadow of Jesus Christ's body. For as Hebrews 10:1 says, the Law was just a shadow of things and it was not the very image of the things. For it is saying that those sacrifices of the Old could never make anything perfect. Only Jesus Christ's sacrifice makes an atonement for our sin.

Let's look at this with understanding...

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I am assuming a certain level of understanding here concerning the scripture, namely that you understand that italicized words indicate they are not in the original, so what we really read here is this...

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.

Now you do know what a parenthetical thought is and "in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath: Which are a shadow of things to come;" is a parenthetical thought. English rules require that we can remove a parenthetical thought and not change the meaning of the sentence. Let's do just that...

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you
Col 2:17 but the body of Christ.

So, don't let any man judge you but the body of Christ. Judge you about what?

in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath

What Paul is saying here is don't let anyone judge you in keeping these things. So, say as you will and do as you will, it matters not to me. You are not the Church of God and you are not going to judge me.

 

[john832]

Technically, there is no such thing as jumping back to the previous chapter actually. We say this sometimes because these things exist within our Bibles today. However, chapter and verse numbers are not a part of the original text. I just showed you the context of what the surrounding text says, if you choose not to see it, then that is your choice. But my last post still stands.

Of course not, it is referring to the first and second COVENANT...

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

First and Second is obviously in context to First Testament and the New Testament. For there is no other "first" mentioned on another topic in the surrounding text. The context is clear if you are open to seeing it, my friend.

Anyways, I ask that you pray over it and re-consider what the Bible plainly says.

In any event, peace be unto you.
And may God's love shine upon you.

Making this up as you go, huh?

It seems that the subject changes according to what you want it to be. The book of Hebrews is about the Priesthood under the first and second Covenant.

 

[john832]

Hey mate,

Is it bondage to not kill?

what about not stealing is that bondage? is this a yoke too hard to carry?

when you see someone telling another Christian that they should not be committing adult and showing them from the bible. are they being judgemental? are they putting a yoke on them? are they trying to put them in bondage?

If a person refuses to take the name of the Lord in vain can they then not realize the faith and salvation of Christ?

I am sure you would answer no to all of these.

So the real issue here is the 4th commandment.

Yet do not most Christians keep Sunday, how is Sunday not bondage yet the Day God made Holy and set apart himself before sin entered the world bondage?

I mean really ponder this for a bit.

Why would Jesus die to get rid of a day out of his eternal law of love that He himself established before sin was an issue on earth?

The very reason for the 4th commandment was a reminder that God is the creator, did that change after Jesus died?

Did Moses create the Sabbath? Did Moses make the 7th day Holy and set it apart?

Did Moses write the 10 commandments on stone?

Did Moses speak them from the MT with power?

clearly no.

So if all 10 were written, spoken, made by God and all were before Sin then why would God do away with them?

In fact out of all 10 only 1 is specifically written in the bible directly as being before sin entered our world. that is the 4th the 1 everyone says does not matter any more.

Yet if one thinks it is clear that all the other 9 logically existed before also. before sin no one stole, killed etc. because the bible is clear that sin is breaking the law.

Now I know that you want to hold on to what you think some texts are saying. but we must see scripture as a whole. there are most surely laws that are now past when Jesus died. but not the ones that are eternal and pre sin. its the ones that pointed to Jesus.

Granted in Christ we don't need even the law on stone as it is now written in our hearts by faith and the power of the Grace of Christ that works in us. and if we have this Grace and this true faith that converts the soul then our fruit will be loving obedience to all 10 of Gods statements of love. If even one is missing we show that we do not have faith in his creative power.

There is no debate to be had my friend. It is unbiblical and illogical to do away with any of the 10. rather by faith we establish the law by the working of Gods Grace in us. its not about what we can or should do. Its about what God can do in us and what he has promised and has power to do by His Grace if we would just have faith.

It always boils down to the fourth Commandment, the test Commandment. No one EVER argues that the sixth Commandment is done away. No one ever argues that adultery is no longer prohibited, neither do they argue that is acceptable to take God's holy name in vain. It is always about obeying the fourth Commandment.

 

[Karraster]

It always boils down to the fourth Commandment, the test Commandment. No one EVER argues that the sixth Commandment is done away. No one ever argues that adultery is no longer prohibited, neither do they argue that is acceptable to take God's holy name in vain. It is always about obeying the fourth Commandment.

I've noticed. When I was a kid, nobody said the commandments were done away,except the 4th had been changed because He rose on Sunday, that's what they said. Nowadays it's popular to say all are done away...guess that old devil thought to hisself..self, ya got away with getting rid of 1, now let's see what to do about those other pesky 9. .....meanwhile back at the ranch.....the pots on the stove, the waters boiling, and the frog..oh well never mind about the frog, who are they?

..not to say I don't care about the frogs, that was just an illustration.")

 

[kennethcadwell]

The issue is that people want to make the word law a dirty word, yet the bible says that God's moral laws are written in our heart. And what they fail to see is that God's moral laws are contained within the 10 commandments. The laws that were blotted out were the written ordinances of the 613 mosaic laws.

 

[Karraster]

The issue is that people want to make the word law a dirty word, yet the bible says that God's moral laws are written in our heart. And what they fail to see is that God's moral laws are contained within the 10 commandments. The laws that were blotted out were the written ordinances of the 613 mosaic laws.

Perhaps the issue is that rebellious people reject the Word of Almighty, and make up whatever feels good to them.